How many times can we change our economics? With my one repair job now on long term hold I have received a request to use the slack it has opened up. Question is can I actually use that slack? In theory we are only into late January... Perhaps make only 5/6 of the capacity available? I am looking for guidance as to what is reasonable here.
Michael
While I am not sitting in a rules making position, I would suggest hat it would carry over to the next half year. This would be in line with how we do the fleet upkeep (at least I do), that is, paying full upkeep for ships lost on the 2nd of January (or the 17th) for the entire half year.
It will only be confusing if we keep changing our report every time a ship is lost or something changes.
To some extent I see the economy reports as being retroactive, with the income and costs from the half year before.
That was my plan... to just roll it all over...
The repair job in question here simply replaces one ship with another of very similar size. The time lag between the first and second probably isnt more than a couple of weeks.
Two problems:
1. Some material has probably already been custom-cut to Brandenburgian standards.
2. You're assuming someone else doesn't replace it with another of very similar size...
Personally, I'd say that the specifics are probably not worth the hassle of worrying about.
But if you're striving for realism, assume maybe a third of the material needs to be re-forged/re-cut/re-something, and carry it over to the next half year.
Since it's related to the above,
Historicly during war ships where repaired much faster than during peacetime, take Yorktown as an example, however our rules don't allow that without seriously affecting our economy. Perhaps allowing a 1/3 reduction in repair time during war at a reduced ship effectiveness (95%)?
Well Yorktown wasn't fully repaired really. Just enough to get her back into action. Enterprise had issues like this later on. Saratoga on the aother hand kept taking hits that kept her in drydock for months.
Part of it may have been how the vessels were designed. Or maybe the Americans were better at repairs to their warships, or at least faster.
I think there are a difference between repairs and repairs.
You got repairs that restore the unit to its original capability (or close enough) and hasty repairs that I describe as "patching" in the later case it is simply a question of plugging the holes and clearing out the dead, and then sending the ship back into action. The second is what was done to Yorktown, the minimum amount of repairs that allow a ship to head back to sea.
I do agree that patching - ala Yorktown - is different than repairing. Replacing wooden planks on a flight deck is much simpler than replacing turbines or burned-out turrets.
On the other hand, the German battlecruisers at Jutland got thoroughly trashed, yet were all back in service relatively quickly - Seydlitz took twenty-plus hits and a fish, nearly sank on the way home, and was back in service before the end of 1916.
So it might not be a bad idea to consider different times for building a ship and repairing a ship.